I think there has been a lot of hysterics in the replies to this one, and I will stay out of most of them, but XMarineX, I would like to ask, and im not being a smarta**, I work with cops in my civilian job and I have a lot of respect for them (Canadian and US ones both), but here is my Q:
Regarding a suspect who is "resisting". I understand that the police have to arrest the perp, I mean, he was in a car involved in a chase, so hey, fair game, the guy is arrestable, but, you seem to paint the picture as if just because the perp is "resisting/being non compliant" (if he was) that lethal force is justified. My understanding is that lethal force is only justified to defend either yourself or the public from imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death. Ex. They guy has a weapon, or he is doing something that will cause serious injury to the Deputy (like say running him down with a car, ect).
To shoot simply because he is being uncooperative seems to be a huge jump in force level does it not? Tazer, baton, pepper spray or open hand would be considered appropriate for an unarmed man, in almost all situations like that, I think. To be shot for not being compliant in a pursuit arrest seems a bit heavy handed. Deputy says dont get up, he gets up, and at that point you open fire? Im not sure about that, unless there was something else that raises the threat level which we dont see in the vid.
I will finish by saying, after viewing the vid several times, its too poor quality to really know what happened. The sound is poor, and its dark, and I would wait to see what the investigators come up with. I wasn't there, and Im not pretending that I was.
Regards.